Ghost jobs prompt policy rethink as governments weigh bans

Ghost jobs — advertisements for positions that do not exist — have re-emerged as a policy concern after studies in the United States, United Kingdom and Germany suggested a sizeable share of online vacancies are not genuine. A cross-border analysis by recruitment software provider Greenhouse found up to 22% of jobs advertised online last year carried no intent to hire, while a separate UK study put the figure at 34%. The discrepancy matters because postings shape perceptions of the labour market and the health of hiring activity. The latest U.S. data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed 7.2 million vacancies in August, yet only 5.1 million people were hired, highlighting gaps between advertised openings and actual hiring.

For workers, ghost ads can derail careers and erode confidence. In the United States, tech worker Eric Thompson, who was laid off from a start-up in October, spent months applying for hundreds of roles only to realize some listings were not real. Thompson has since helped form a working group urging federal action to curb fake job postings and is backing legislation called The Truth in Job Advertising & Accountability Act, which would require expiring postings when hiring pauses or completes, create auditable hiring records and impose penalties on misleading or non-existent roles. The effort has drawn significant attention in Congress, and Thompson’s petition has gathered more than 50,000 signatures.

Ontario is moving first among major jurisdictions. Starting Jan. 1, companies with more than 25 employees will be required to disclose whether an advertised vacancy is actively being filled. The province also aims to curb recruitment ghosting — where employers fail to respond to applicants — by requiring timely replies to candidates who have been interviewed, within 45 days. Experts caution that enforcement may prove challenging. Deborah Hudson, an employment lawyer based in Toronto, says governments may struggle to monitor compliance and notes that workers can still be left without recourse if employers try to dodge rules. Still, Hudson acknowledges the potential for the new rules to improve transparency and reduce the stigma around job-seeking.

Globally, the policy landscape remains mixed. In the United States and United Kingdom, there is no universal legal requirement to reply to every candidate, and there are no broad moves in the UK to regulate ghost jobs or recruitment ghosting. Ailish Davies, a jobseeker from Leicester, calls ghosting “soul destroying,” recounting occasions when a hiring manager requested availability for an interview and then provided no follow-up. Jasmine Escalera, a Miami-based career coach and recruitment expert, notes that some employers post positions to create a perceived growth narrative or to build a talent pool for later use, even if they do not intend to hire immediately. Dr. Escalera cautions that the data underlying labour-market policy could be distorted if employers use postings to manipulate perceptions or collect data for other purposes.

The drivers behind ghost postings are varied. In interviews with hiring managers, Escalera says some firms post roles to cultivate a pipeline of potential applicants, while others inflate growth figures by keeping roles open. There are also concerns that some postings are used to harvest or monetize data about job seekers. Regardless of motive, the pattern can distort labour-market statistics and complicate policy responses designed to support job seekers and small businesses.

For job hunters, the practical advice remains to network directly with hiring managers and to watch for red flags, such as postings that reappear repeatedly or stay open for long periods without tangible hiring activity. Dr. Escalera says real opportunities tend to involve conversations with actual people at the organization, not automated postings alone, though she stresses that not every repeated listing signals a nonexistent job. In the meantime, researchers and policymakers argue that improved transparency could help align advertised openings with real hiring plans and reduce the risks of misleading data for policy design.

The debate over ghost jobs is part of a broader discussion about data quality in labour markets and how best to measure hiring trends in a digital economy. If employers overstate hiring activity or run misleading postings, policymakers could draw incorrect conclusions about the strength of the economy or the availability of talent. Ontario’s approach, if effective, could serve as a model for other jurisdictions seeking to improve transparency without imposing undue administrative burdens on employers. As governments assess next steps, researchers say robust monitoring, clear timelines, and escalation pathways for noncompliance will be critical to turning policy promises into real improvements for workers and businesses alike.